Mowk wrote:Merlin, Who are you? And have you in any of your previous incarnations been banned? What sock puppet are you currently operating under?

You would like to disparage socialism and generalize it as Marxist? You can't take a shit without a hundred thousand people being involved. You don't take a drink from tap water without society and socialism being in play. You can't even take an honest look at yourself. Can you start a fire with only your knowledge to rely upon? Do you grow your own food? If this shit and a hand basket were to go up in smoke, you'd be up a creek without a paddle. Or tell me you are a master of self survival.

Shit, you didn't even give me a chance to clean the gun.

Who are you? Are you Merlin, Joker ???? Wtf fellow planeteer? Who are you?

Ucci stated my post history is available for all to see. What about your history? You wanna play games? Dictate the rules. I have no flipping idea how smart I am. You want to play a 'game'?

So here is my proposition. We have a discussion, a conversation, just you and me. I don't want to debate you. I want to learn from you if you've got anything I can learn from. You may ask any questions of me as long as I can ask any questions of you; I agree to answer them truthfully and honestly if you can agree to do the same.

Come on, Joker, shall we dance by the pale blue light of the moon? (sorry that was a bit melodramatic, but it bought me a smile just the same. I admit I can use all I can find.) And you seek to make fun of it? Let's you and I "dance", shall we?.

Question? Are you courageous enough to dance with an idiot? Like I said I don't know you. Let's dance.

Another question, given your view, are you courageous enough to dance with who you feel is an idiot.

Question being, are you a humanist enough that you would be seen dancing with someone you think is an idiot?

If you think you could best Ucci and you think Ucci bested me. You've got some thinking coming your way. Don't worry though, you think I am an idiot.

Can you dance? I'm not looking for someone to just stand there, posing.

Yes, I've had many incarnations on this forum.

You can't socialize everything I would argue which is why socialism as a political organization fails. I no longer go by the Joker. I've retired the Joker in that some of my views have changed.

My views are always changing as I like to see myself as evolving in my thinking.

I always welcome a debate of course.

Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Don't et different incarnations shame You into idiocy Merlin. It is the sign of these sorry times. Rather, let those, who imbibe a seemingly particularly distinct view bedazzle their own lack of proper, or, otherwise rick solid foundation.

That is quite passé, I am afraid. The thing is, mainstream doesent distinguis isms any more, basically because, the dead is no longer different DWP from the living. Communism has imploded more than a generation ago, and it takes to live it to know it.

Communism to me begs on its meaning, at least that's the implication of the question. Whenever someone requests in general terms what communism is to any one, it refers that to nominal meaning, rather than a generic description of , for instance, how it works. Descriptions are more cross interdisciplinary, cultural, and functional. These latter, rely on checking other sources. Therefore,to my mind, it would be inconvenient to assume a communism which is nowadays is other than merely an ideological construction. Ideology and practice are no longer other than approximate confirmation of each other, like let's say displaying functional and conceptual correlates, mirroring the idea with its application.

The application of an ideology has to be compared with a schematic possibility with its functional equivalent, where verification is more likely start with presentations of examples of what communism entails and re-presenting them in various modes of workable current types of political and social manifest. The ideology in its pure form, is a an ideal model, from which an nominal meaning can be abstracted.

I can not present communism, apart from its previous models, and alternatively, therefore, such a presentation will suffer from an other then present construction. It is therefore a re-construction, a hybrid. Such a hybrid begs its evolutionary prescription, as presented by the hytoric development starting from Hegel, through, Kant, Marx, Engels and so on.

Meaning is not developmental, but so is a topical presentation apart from its development. In that sense, Communism is dead, since it can not presently connect to any former presentation. It is merely a hypothetical re-presentation, using mixtures of different social contracts with their revious uses.

This is why variance is an essential part of what communism is, as can be understood in the manyformed descriptions via how they worked. China has always differed from its Russian Counterpart, and the French Communist Party supported by Sartre, broke away from the International Communism, at a time when reassessment and revision took hold because of the breakdown of political differences among the members of the Internationale. It was an ideology, simply presented , at a time when fractures did not yet appear. With the coming of differences, an exact literal reference to held sources became inapplicable in the present future and the future perfect senses. History had to be re lived, of which Marx had warned, and as such it had to be re-lived point by point in the present tense, having little experimental reference apart from the internationally adopted sense to which early communism could refer.

Therefore, I can not present to you a sense in which communism applies a modicum of my own personal experience, except by which it presents in reference to current nations or academics, still holding on to the idea. That this is a very poor way it can be understood, is evident in the current swirling opinions which hold on to a modicum or relevance. Most will just throw up their hands and declare it unworkable.

It failed even as a social experiment in the 60's, where most communes disintegrated, or ended in catastrophe. With these arguments in mind, I have really no recourse to insist that the idea had only short, limited appeal for strictly pseudo ideological reasons.

As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their "Synthesis" (cp. Hegel) is globalism or "humanitarianism" where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely "aufgehoben" (Hegel).

I agree to that, but at the same time, that would indicate a sort of irrelevance of the present topic to one, whose main thesis has been seen as of yet unfocused by Uccisore. Therefore maybe it is premature to not to include this present diversion as not relevant, and it may be ok to go on with it, maybe until further clarification is introduced, while at the same time, pursue Your suggested link as a way to proceed.

Perhaps Carleas, who has agreed to judge over this forum could add further insight into the way to proceed.

In theory, this forum is just for lining up the details for a debate. If you and Arminius/Alf would like to debate communism, we could set that up. Just need to figure out the format (standard is something like 5 posts each, 250 words or so), judges, who goes first, and, of course, a clearly expressed question for debate --could be just arguing for/against the statement "Communism isn't dead", but could also be some narrower point of disagreement that comes out of the discussion in the thread Arminius linked to.

Though I said I would earlier in this thread, I don't really have time to judge a debate right now, but I'm sure we could find someone who could judge, or we could do a non-judged debate, with or without vote buttons in the discussion.

Thanks, Carleas. I am open to any and all forms to pursue the more specific debate on Trump, or the more general dialogue relating to Communism and Capitalism. I would like to see all threads relevant to both points of view retained, while maintaining the one and leaning toward a unified grasp of what they entail.

Sorry You can not judge, if judging is what Arminius and i agree upon. In the case that a judgement is deemed appropriate, then be it that.

Arminius,

I think it would only be fair, to agree, first of all, to the idea of debate including Your link on Communism, since a mindset occurred perhaps both: first, the introductive similarity to how Trumpism relates to the general framework of ideological differences, particularly as itcould go deeper into the very essence of those differences via related it to the ideas presented in Your own suggested link, with which I am not familiar to the extent, that I could use it without reading it carefully.

What do You think?

As far as Your quote on Hegel, yes the quality of the synthesis befits a newer version, however, this changes most noticeably with Marx, who replaces spirit with a material manifestation. This is probably retrograde, toward the direction of earlier more concrete conflict resolution, for the sake of the proletariat. For to attempt a quest toward a view society is more prone to accept more literally the idea, is perhaps to his (Marx) credit.

jerkey wrote:Thanks, Carleas. I am open to any and all forms to pursue the more specific debate on Trump, or the more general dialogue relating to Communism and Capitalism. I would like to see all threads relevant to both points of view retained, while maintaining the one and leaning toward a unified grasp of what they entail.

Sorry You can not judge, if judging is what Arminius and i agree upon. In the case that a judgement is deemed appropriate, then be it that.

Arminius,

I think it would only be fair, to agree, first of all, to the idea of debate including Your link on Communism, since a mindset occurred perhaps both: first, the introductive similarity to how Trumpism relates to the general framework of ideological differences, particularly as itcould go deeper into the very essence of those differences via related it to the ideas presented in Your own suggested link, with which I am not familiar to the extent, that I could use it without reading it carefully.

What do You think?

As far as Your quote on Hegel, yes the quality of the synthesis befits a newer version, however, this changes most noticeably with Marx, who replaces spirit with a material manifestation. This is probably retrograde, toward the direction of earlier more concrete conflict resolution, for the sake of the proletariat. For to attempt a quest toward a view society is more prone to accept more literally the idea, is perhaps to his (Marx) credit.

Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel's conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said "das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein" ("the Sein [being] determines the consciousness"), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: "das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein" ("the consciousness determines the Sein [being]").

The reason why I am saying that "communism is not dead" has to do with Hegel's Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.

I support trump only cause the poor bastard stepped into a straitjacket and I kinda have to support him the same as I kinda have to be an american. Didn't have much of a choice. All of a sudden it was like, ahhhhh, this guy, gotta support this guy whether I like it or not. Why? Well shit, just another poor bloke like meself stuck in a bad spot. Couldn't help but feel for the little guy, ya know?

“We hide in plain sight, and it works. Majestically. Everyone else can fuck the fuck off.”

Fair enough yet a debate stylistically more a mirror of a Dialectic. But perhaps, Trump lacking an ideological groumd, such would be , an exploration using hypothetical arguments based on revised information, not that such am endeavor could not mirror a close approximation.

Some Guy in History wrote:I support trump only cause the poor bastard stepped into a straitjacket and I kinda have to support him the same as I kinda have to be an american. Didn't have much of a choice. All of a sudden it was like, ahhhhh, this guy, gotta support this guy whether I like it or not. Why? Well shit, just another poor bloke like meself stuck in a bad spot. Couldn't help but feel for the little guy, ya know?

Yes but he placed himself there, it was not as though someone placed a gun at his head.

Some Guy in History wrote:I support trump only cause the poor bastard stepped into a straitjacket and I kinda have to support him the same as I kinda have to be an american. Didn't have much of a choice. All of a sudden it was like, ahhhhh, this guy, gotta support this guy whether I like it or not. Why? Well shit, just another poor bloke like meself stuck in a bad spot. Couldn't help but feel for the little guy, ya know?

Yes but he placed himself there, it was not as though someone placed a gun at his head.

Can you honestly say that we place ourselves in places? On our own?

“We hide in plain sight, and it works. Majestically. Everyone else can fuck the fuck off.”

jerkey wrote:Thanks, Carleaus. I am open to any and all forms to pursue the more specific debate on Trump, or the more general dialogue relating to Communism and Capitalism. I would like to see all threads relevant to both points of view retained, while maintaining the one and leaning toward a unified grasp of what they entail.

Sorry You can not judge, if judging is what Arminius and i agree upon. In the case that a judgement is deemed appropriate, then be it that.

Arminius,

I think it would only be fair, to agree, first of all, to the idea of debate including Your link on Communism, since a mindset occurred perhaps both: first, the introductive similarity to how Trumpism relates to the general framework of ideological differences, particularly as itcould go deeper into the very essence of those differences via related it to the ideas presented in Your own suggested link, with which I am not familiar to the extent, that I could use it without reading it carefully.

What do You think?

As far as Your quote on Hegel, yes the quality of the synthesis befits a newer version, however, this changes most noticeably with Marx, who replaces spirit with a material manifestation. This is probably retrograde, toward the direction of earlier more concrete conflict resolution, for the sake of the proletariat. For to attempt a quest toward a view society is more prone to accept more literally the idea, is perhaps to his (Marx) credit.

Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel's conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said "das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein" ("the Sein [being] determines the consciousness"), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: "das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein" ("the consciousness determines the Sein [being]").

The reason why I am saying that "communism is not dead" has to do with Hegel's Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.

To defend my position Arminius, is a difficult one,at best The idea of a material dialectic is certainly a controversial one,even in today's atmosphere

But a presumption is a presumption, and it is apropos that Trump is a paradigm of revision. Therefore, it would still be convenient to base an argument in its own merit, especially at a time so full of duplicity, since it is of duplicity to deny a formal argument sans for reasons which you pointed to in the manyform usages of significant words. Especially key words relating to Dialectic.

Hence, we go back to the usage pre Hegel, and find a differance.That difference is as significant before as after Hegel' s use,and as such, a very brief correlation would bear it out, at the very least.

Not that it would. constitute the totally abstracted reflection of its meaning in such a manner, but, it would imply relevance.

If it is right that "Trump is a paradigm of revision", what kind of revision is it and where does it exactly lead to?

Your text does not make this clear.

Hello Arminius,

Again ,revision is such a general term, that to specify its usage, one that literally fits its intended use would be necessary.

Here I am using it in its wide context of trying to implement change, whereas the blueprints and the power and wi behind that change have been clearly outlined prior to election.

In the narrow sense, it can not yet be absolutely and irrevocably inscribed, because, non of it has been implemented.

However, it certainly looks as if it will be. The former homeland security chief himself was quoted in saying that Trump has the potential to be a great President. That said, the narrowest possible interpretation of that idea can only be used in reference to Trump, once he has clearly defined his position in terms of an implementrd, socially proved movement, which now only appears as also a possibility.

The ideas are reactionary and drastic to the point of bravura, yet, bravura at a time requiring as such.

So , revision could be seen as of yet , a movement, albeit a drastic attempt to insure the success of Capitalism, against the backdrop of a social movement not complacent with it.

If it is right that "Trump is a paradigm of revision", what kind of revision is it and where does it exactly lead to?

Your text does not make this clear.

Hello Arminius,

Again ,revision is such a general term, that to specify its usage, one that literally fits its intended use would be necessary.

Here I am using it in its wide context of trying to implement change, whereas the blueprints and the power and wi behind that change have been clearly outlined prior to election.

In the narrow sense, it can not yet be absolutely and irrevocably inscribed, because, non of it has been implemented.

However, it certainly looks as if it will be. The former homeland security chief himself was quoted in saying that Trump has the potential to be a great President. That said, the narrowest possible interpretation of that idea can only be used in reference to Trump, once he has clearly defined his position in terms of an implementrd, socially proved movement, which now only appears as also a possibility.

The ideas are reactionary and drastic to the point of bravura, yet, bravura at a time requiring as such.

So , revision could be seen as of yet , a movement, albeit a drastic attempt to insure the success of Capitalism, against the backdrop of a social movement not complacent with it.

Hello again.

Yes, but isn't "reactionary" also a general term?

What exactly makes those ideas you mentioned so "reactionary"?

"Great president" or "implemented, socially proved movement", a "possibility" or not - that all does not express very much, does it?

I am not a Trump fan but hoping that you will enlighten me. Please clarify!

You are right on point. The genealogical precedents of meaning are built up from one word to the next.A reactionary is someone who looks for precedents consisting of systems based on models, paradigms that worked before in some context. So you comment is fitting .

I found the following defintion of "reactionary", but I must say that I do not fully accept it:

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

The definition is one that refers to the French revolution, and the French revolutionaries were not better than those they fightet against, all other revolutionaries after them have given evidence, because they were even more terroristic. In addition: All revolutionaries react! So they themselves are reactionaries.

What remains if all those definitions of "reactionary" are not really convincing?